Here are the main reasons I'm against the change:
1. AV is harder to understand than FPTP - while clever people like Mr Kennedy and Miss Lucas are clearly able to comprehend the nuances of AV, a lot of people in this country will not. For me, this is the stand out argument against change. Many people find politics boring and incomprehensible as it is. I reckon that a whole lot more will share this opinion if they have to sit down with a calculator to work out why the person who won the most votes in their constituency was not returned as their MP. Those who are discontented with politics are likely to be extremely turned off by a voting system that allows second and third placed candidates to win. This is not a good thing for civic engagement.
2. AV will weaken democratic accountability - my main argument here is that AV will lead to more hung parliaments and hung parliaments are bad for democracy. I'll be honest, this Lib-Con rose garden love-in has put me right off coalitions for life. Putting aside their political views, however, one can see how the mere fact of coalition has weakened trust in politics. During the tuition fee fiasco, it was all too easy for Clegg & Co to retreat to their standard defence of 'we couldn't help it, we're only in coalition' to justify trebling tuition fees after campaigning vociferously to abolish fees outright. I have written before about how stunts like this turn people away from politics. Allowing more hung parliaments will make people really question what is the point of voting when the party they vote for are liable to cave into their coalition partners and renege on their manifesto commitments.
3. AV will elect more fascist MPs - there is a running debate at the moment between the two campaigns about whether the BNP will stand to benefit from AV. Logic dictates that as AV is more favourable to smaller parties (which is why the Lib Dems, the Greens, the nationalists, and UKIP are all in favour), a small party like the BNP will have a greater chance of winning a seat. In particular, they are highly likely to take second and third preference votes from Labour in deprived areas. Whether or not AV does benefit the BNP and other extremist parties remains to be seen. What I do know, however, is that FPTP is no friend of fascists, with the BNP getting nowhere near winning any seat in UK general elections. When it comes to European elections, which are held under proportional representation, however, Nick Griffin and another one of his cronies were elected to represent our nation.
4. It gives the Liberal Democrats too much power - OK, I'll admit that this objection is partly based on my utter repulsion to the Lib Dems. Sorry. But there is a serious point here: if AV were used, there is a very real chance that the leader of this party would wield tremendous influence in deciding which government is formed after a general election. The Lib Dems have too few seats to be in a position where they could govern in their own right. They have just enough seats, though, to hold the balance when Labour and the Conservatives are tied. The more seats they gain, the more frequent compromises like last summer are likely to become. I'm not sure it's healthy to place such a large amount of political power in the hands of one man. Especially where that man is a little weasel like Nick Clegg.
So I urge my friends on the left to resist the temptation to play in the sunshine with Ed Miliband and Simon Hughes and invite them to join the real voices of fairness, William Hague and Norman Tebbit. Strange as it may seem, the only way of securing civic engagement, moderation and accountability is to vote no to AV. If not, Nick Clegg can look forward to a glorious future as the perpetual king maker of British politics.
